HiAndTight

When is that gonna start? (Lawrie hitting as well as Braun). Granted, Lawrie is still younger than Braun was in Braun's rookie year, and it is still a small sample of just 300 at-bats, but so far Lawrie isn't anywhere close to Braun as a hitter. We'll see, he's definitely got potential... Seriously? I think he's shown plenty of signs of it already. But lets look at the evidence and why he just might not have quite the same opening season that Braun did. 1-Lawrie grew up in Canada and was a prep player when he went pro. 2-Braun grew up in SoCal and went to play at Miami. Ie, one played year round and the other played in a very shortened window and against much less competition. 3-Brett Lawrie at 21 years old played in AAA put up a line of .353/.415/.661/1.076 and .293/.373/.580 .953 4-Ryan Braun at age 22 played a HiA and AA and put up a combined line of .289/.357/.514/.871 5-Lawrie's rookie year, a quarter of a season put up an OPS+ of 151 at the age of 21. 6-Braun put up an OPS+ of 154 his rookie year at the age of 23. So when will he do it? I don't have a crystal ball, and I did say a Ryan Braun type hitter. .300 hitter, I think he might have a higher walk rate, but I believe he will be a 30 HR type player and is certainly capable of stealing bases like Braun. But lets say he's "only," a Longoria type hitter. With his defense at 3rd, the position I've said on here and other message boards he should be playing since he came up, I don't think it's a stretch to suggest his value could be equal to that of Ryan Braun's. And Braun has a nice head start on the greatest hitter to play for the Brewers, a historic start to his career and a regular MVP candidate. So again, when? I don't know exactly. But I think there's a whole lotta evidence out there that he will at some point become a hitter comparable to Ryan Braun. It's funny, nobody would question it if you said the same about Harper, but Lawrie's far more proven than Harper, and a whole lot of people have compared the two as the next set of superstars coming up. I'd also add my point isn't in the slightest to diminish Braun, but to articulate just what we gave away when we traded a #3 pitcher for a player who could very well be a more valuable player than Ryan Braun.

But...it goes without saying, he was great for a much longer time than Pedro, which always has to play in.

Big difference between "shaken up" and having your knee twist in a weird direction. The teams put huge investments into the players, so I think it is absolutely the trainers' job to pull players if there's a chance of significant injury. The risk scenario is pulling a non-injured player and losing one game vs not pulling an injured player and (as in Ellis' case) having the player lose his leg. Not much of a decision in my mind. You're using hindsight to justify your argument. What I'm saying is professional athletes often twist a knee or ankle and it might look bad and far more often than not, they're fine. So because you've got a couple examples when the players themselves weren't honest, you want to do what? I'm not sure here. Force the player out of the game? And bringing up Ellis. Please list the last time something like that came close to happening in baseball? Not tell me how many times the trainers come out every day in baseball? So no, there isn't a "big difference," between being shaken up and having your knee twisted(in an awkward direction, though that's redundant...if it twists anyway it's awkward). And citing how much these teams have invested into these players is irrelevant.... I think this is alarmist and knee jerk. Are you upset that Marcum hasn't been taken out of a couple of starts this year when he was sore? That Braun stayed in the game when he had an Achilles problem initially? If the player says he's fine, and can move around, who's the trainer to say, "no, you can't play?" And again...using Mark Ellis as an example is kinda weak IMO. That's a extraordinarily rare situation from a sprained knee. It's like saying you shouldn't practice in weather above 80 degrees because Korey Stringer died during a practice from heat exhaustion? I guess my problem is you have no criteria other than, "the trainers should take these guys out of the game." And I ask again, based on what? If they can't detect anything on the field and the player says he's fine...why are we to put this all on the trainers lap?

Only need another 30 million people to do that, and we'll have enough! Heck, if the Dodgers went for 2.2 without getting full parking rights, you might need 40 million people to do that. God would I love to see a Carl Pohlad type guy go out and buy the Yankees. Do what he did to the Twins. Die with his billions of dollars without trying to build a winner. Can you imagine if Mark Attanasio had Pohlad type money? We'd have Greinke re-signed, Prince at 1st and CC in our starting rotation!

Yeah, this is why you take players out of the game to have things checked out. After the injury, he went back out and played, just like Gamel. When are teams going to realize that the end of the current game isn't as important as potentially destroying a player's career, and there are a lot of things a trainer can't figure out during an on-the-field exam? So what do you do, take out every single player who gets shaken up on the field? Players need to be responsible for their own well being in large part as well. If a player twists a knee, the trainer comes back out and the player says it's fine, I think you're putting too much on the trainer to force him out of the game.

Do you have any reason to back that up? I'm just wondering, but I wouldn't think the commissioners office, the players union or the umps would have any say in how open the Brewers leave their roof.

http://i.imgur.com/J6HXL.gif Duuude...you can't post that picture...ever again...that picture just goes right through me...that is a creep...creepy smile!

I have to disagree there. I think Bochy's a guy who doesn't make excuses and is as much of a calm, respected coach as their is. I think the whining comes after the WS win, maybe it's leftover from Bonds, I don't know. But I can't lay that on Bochy. He just seems like too much of an old school guy and frankly a good guy to me. [sarcasm]Plus, if he has a problem, he'd just head but anyone he had a problem with. It'd be like bowling. One headbut would cause the opposing team to fall like domino's.[/sarcasm]

That would be amazing. What I'm wondering is: is that even legal? I mean, is it legal (legal in terms of MLB rules) to have all of that pre-planned in advance? Has that ever happened before in MLB history? i.e. a player is traded at the deadline and then re-signed in the off season? I could see a scenario where a player gets traded and the GM says "we'd still like to sign you for next year", and the player says "well, cool, give me the best offer when the time comes and my agent and I will weigh it against all the other offers...." etc But to have it worked out in advance? Is that legal? Just wondering... Edit-I thought there was a situation with the Yankees in which they tried doing this with Dave Winfield and were subsequently penalized for it leading to Steinbrenner's suspension for two years(lifetime at the time). I got the story 100 pct wrong....after going back and reading about it, it jarred my memory, though...the particulars were worse than I previously recalled. Anyway, I'm nearly 100 pct certain that it is illegal to work out terms of a contract, or to "collude," to re-sign with the team that's trading you the following year. But as someone else said, nothing wrong with saying, "Hey, we'd love to have you back next year, and we're doing this so we can be competitive and to fill a huge need," and then perhaps point out all the pitching prospects we have coming up, and...perhaps a promise to try and surround him with the best position players possible?

That......that is a dream scenario that could literally propel this team into the World Series in the future. While trying to keep the drool in my mouth, if you could put Profar at SS and have him hitting leadoff as early as next year and playing GG caliber SS WITH Greinke, it'd almost make up for losing Lawrie(almost, still think he's Ryan Braun with the defensive chops at 3rd). Still...our window would be open for 6 years or however long Greinke was signed. I've gone on and on and on about how successful I think our pitching staff can be WITH Greinke around and building that foundation with Gallardo. But now we'd have the same thing with Profar/Aoki/Braun/Aram/Hart/Weeks/Gamel/Lucroy(who's WAY too far down in that order, but just as a starting point. Rotation of Greinke/Gallardo/Thornburg/Peralta/Estrada-Narveson-Fiers.... But back in reality, we probably won't end up with either player, much less both. But what an unprecedented coup that would be if we somehow did end up with both?

While I agree that Ramirez and Weeks would both be better to shop this offseason, I think Melvin signed Ramirez to a virtually untradeable contract. In an effort to fit him onto this year's team which went way over budget when K-Rod accepted arby, they signed a back-end-loaded deal which only pays him $6MM this year, but escalates to $10MM next year and $16MM in two years when he will be (I believe) 35 years old. Then there's a $4MM buyout in 2015, so he'll be owed 2 years / $30MM after this year, and even if he puts up great numbers the rest of the season I doubt anyone touches that without us pitching in a lot of money. Yeah, I agree. That's what I was trying to say when I said I believe he's only getting paid 6 million dollars this year. I mis-spoke when I said he was owed 2/15, I meant I thought he was going to be owed 30 million over the next 2 years at 15 million a piece. I didn't know the exact breakdown with the 4 million dollar option buyout, but in the end it's the same. So my point, which I made poorly was, if he has the type of season I suggested, then I think a team would look at him as a player worth 2 years and 20 million. Hence the 10 million I suggested we'd kick in to move him. I'd be happy as heck to get that deal done. Thanks for clearing up the particulars and I can see how my post didn't across clearly with the 2/15 when I meant 15 over the next two years(2/30). So I agree, 10 million I think is at least what we're going to have to eat in order to move him. And that's IF he has a good year at the end of the day. If he regresses to the .265/.330/.475 range with 20 HR's and 75 RBI's, teams won't go over 2 years and 16 million. Either way, I know you're paying a lot of money for a player who isn't here, but I'd rather look at it as saving money for a player who wouldn't be doing anything for us if we're not a contender. What good is it to keep him, even if he puts up good numbers at such a ridiculous contract? Another question that we can only speculate about, but to me is directly related to how long Doug Melvin SHOULD be in the employ of the Milwaukee Brewers, but who's idea was the Aram signing? Taylor Green hasn't been what I expected. I honestly expected a poor mans Mark Loretta type who could handle 3rd, 2nd and 1st, hit .265/.345/.450 for a rookie with 12-15 HR's, but he hasn't impressed. Of course it's early. But to me signing Aram over turning the reigns over to Green wasn't worth the 30 million we're going to be paying Aram the next two years. Did Mark A push for a big signing or did Melvin think this move was a good one? And there's very little hindsight here. We all knew it at the time. This was only a good signing if they could sign Greinke and even then "good," only in the sense that it gives you a presence in the middle of the order to keep you competitive. But without Greinke, he's just a bloated aging contract on a non-contender. I do agree on the Profar comments. To me he and Machado are kind of the "ultimate targets" who we may realisticly be able to trade for this offseason. I don't know if either one could be had in trade, but if they can it would make the future much brighter. Yeah, I just did a double take when it was stated that Paul I believe it was, didn't like the Profar trade to the Rangers for Greinke and possibly throwing someone else in and then going on to say he doesn't want a guy with a low ceiling and that he wants quality over quantity. Profar is the EPITOME of quality over quantity. I'll go a step further. I'll trade them Axford AND Greinke to get Profar back(with them throwing us a LoA arm with some long term potential upside). Profar has the look of a superstar leadoff hitter at the next level. And again, I actually prefer him to Machado. It just makes all the sense in the world. If not the Brewers, the Rangers are the ideal landing spot for Greinke. I would think that the Braves would be willing to trade Simmons, but I don't know that they'd be looking for pitching (although Greinke is an upgrade for any team in baseball). I would think Hart would be a good guy to shop to Atlanta; possibly for Simmons or Pastronicky, but more likely for one of their young pitchers. They don't have spots for all of their MLB-ready pitchers, and next year we are going to have a lot of SP spots open. I've been on board with trading Hart for years now. And the only way I'd keep him is if I wasn't still so high on Gamel and still confident he is going to be a productive major league player. Call me crazy, but I believe he can be a 4.5 WAR player for us over the next 4-5 years. So if I didn't like Gamel, I'd be trying to hold onto Hart to play 1st base for us as I think he now stays at 1st for the remainder of the year as it's just too logical to keep him there and getting Aoki into the lineup. As for who we should trade Hart for if we do, the list of Braves young arms is too long and this post is already a novel. I agree, you could take your pick of about 5-6 and I'd be alright with it.

Good god...two things I never thought I'd be saying/agreeing with last year. Gomez playing everyday and actually having the chance to be a very solid player, and actually....missing Yuni B? Seriously, when you MISS Yuni Beancourt what in the hell is going on with your team? I even miss Craig Counsell.

I'm not willing to deal with Gomez just yet. It's a long-long shot, but he's still young, and while the last couple years I'd have just as soon waived him as done anything else(not literally, he's provided value obviously defensively). But this year he looks different at the plate. Like a pitcher who adds a couple MPH to his fastball(Estrada as poor example as the upsides aren't even close) Gomez has actually had a MUCH improved approach at the plate. Could it be short lived? Of course. Is it likely? Absolutely. Does it annoy me when people ask questions and then answer them themselves? Certainly. But I'd rather just hold onto Gomez as his value is minimal and his upside IF that 1 in a 100 type player turns out to be Gomez. That superstar potential who just simply came up too early and took a while to "get it." I was debating this in another thread and people were calling it a "hot streak." I'm not even bothering to look at his numbers. It's his at bats. It's him taking a get me over slider on the 1st pitch because he can't do anything with it, taking off the plate and then getting a pitch to hit and going up the middle with it and hitting it hard. I really doubt he'll end up keeping this up, but he looks like a completely different player than in the past, even when he had hot streaks, he was still up there with the same approach. It JUST might be possible that he's changed his approach and now he's actually capable of becoming a .280 hitter and even just at .320 his value absolutely skyrockets as I think with his frame and his bat speed it would result in more HR's, the added OBP would lead to a lot more stolen bases at a very high clip, AND he'd still be a great defender in CF. And what do we have to lose? It's not like he would be much of a deal breaker in Washington as his value can't be that much higher than Ankiel's. But that's just me. I've gone from wondering why Gomez has still been on our roster, to valuing his defense and the other aspects he brings, to seeing a glimpse of him approaching the game differently this year and actually giving me the hope he can become a extremely valuable #7 type hitter and GG defender in CF and not just a platoon player who's value lies entirely on his D.

Sorry for all the posts in a row. But...you just HAVE to tell me....how in the world is Profar a "mid ceiling prospect," when he's dominating AA at age 19 and dominated HiA at age 18, already looks like a potential GG SS and everything else I've already said. I just can't fathom calling him a mid-ceiling prospect as he's the complete, 100 pct antithesis of such a player. His ceiling is perennial All Star and GG Shortstop who could hit leadoff for us and get on base at a .380+ clib while batting from both sides. And with his frame he still has a ton of room for projection, so he could still just as easily turn into a guy who hits for power. So again, apologies for the multiple posts, but I have to know...just what are you expecting for Greinke, a guy that the team we trade him to will get nothing for him after the season ends with the new compensation rules? I thought Profar was kinda a pie in the sky dream and I thought if you added on a K-rod and 5 million MAYBE the Rangers would do it just because of how it gives the best team in baseball one of the best pitchers in baseball. It seems to me as though you're looking for a....I don't know, Trout...Bundy, Gerrit Cole type pitching prospect in return. So who would YOU want in return?

Ok, and you think that with the picks you're going to get from the Rangers, you're picks are going to even approach the type of prospect that Profar is? No, Profar is one of the top 3-4 prospects in the game right now, and he's a slick fielding SS who carried a .390 OBP last year as an 18 year old in HiA. He's a Starlin Castro type player who may be a Gold Glove Shortstop. There's no bigger Greinke fan than I, but If K-Rod and a few million dollars is what it takes in addition to Greinke to get Profar, I couldn't be more fine with that. Seriously, you're not getting ANYTHING for K-rod after the season. In season you might get a B-/C+ prospect. He's not dominating any longer. If you don't trade him, he's gone for nothing. Greinke will get you a pick around 28 and very possibly 30, and then a supplemental pick. There is almost literally no chance(almost) that you're going to get 2 players who's value as big leaguers is even going to APPROACH what Profar can and will do. You're talking about a prototypical leadoff hitter who can hit .300, draw a LOT of walks, is 19 years old at AA and playing at an exceptionally high level and could be a .400 OBP type guy while playing GG shortstop. So I'm curious, if the Rangers ask for what I would consider the measly addition of K-Rod+a few million to offset his contract in addition to Greinke and you say no, who ARE you going to get? You gonna get Dylan Bundy from the Orioles? Machado? The #1 and #2 prospects currently in baseball in my view,and Profar might even be ahead of Machado as he's a GG caliber defender and Machado may well be a 3rd basemen...which isn't to say I wouldn't take him, but give me the .400 OBP leadoff hitter over the guy who has to move over to 3rd base anyday.

Again, I just don't see how you can make these types of statements, especially after proclaiming that Aram wouldn't get near 12 million a year in free agency which is what he got from us, and around what the Angels were offering. And I can't possibly fathom why Ryan and Greinke wouldn't be a good match. A team that's lost the last two world series. Best lineup in baseball. Have a ton of money coming in and are becoming on of the big spenders in baseball. -Former Cy Young pitching as well as he's pitched in his entire career save for the first few months of his Cy Young year.

Both are better traded next off-season I believe. Aram-If we trade him, we're going to eat 10 million dollars I believe. If he has the season he SHOULD have, .280/.350/.500-ish, then a team you would think would be willing to pay him 2 years and 20 million. I BELIEVE we'll owe him 2 years and 15 million(someone correct me on that if I'm wrong, I didn't look, I just thought he was only getting 6 million this year). Weeks-....nobody in the world is going to take him right now, and I don't know what's going on with him. He's been my favorite player from Day 1 and he never complains, but I think at some point, something is going to come out. He's just not in the game right now. He's been my favorite Brewer until Greinke was acquired. Love everything about the way he plays. But watching the game with my old man...he looks like a HiA prospect getting a Sept callup. I had to rewind and rewind a strikeout vs Sergio-whatever, the SU man for the Giants where he swung at a slider, really the only thing the guy throws(a good one, but still) and I paused it as Weeks swung and the ball went past, and he was literally 12-18 inches away from being able to reach the ball...and it wasn't in the dirt, it wasn't a great pitch. He walked off the field with 2 outs. That's just not Rickie. He's struggled, but he's always been in it. Something's not right, and I could see a team taking a chance on him for 2-3 million a year as he looks right now if they have a -Izturis/Massonyet type hole but at 2nd base, but not much more. So we'd have to eat way more than to make that worth it. I stand by my argument that we can't compete the next 3-4 years(best case) without Greinke, so I think in terms of cutting salary, the off-season for Aram when his season numbers balance out, maybe the same for Weeks if they do, but I have no confidence at this point. But right now, Hart, Wolf, K-Rod and MAYBE Marcum. I might offer him arbitration though. I think this is the last chance for a big contract and if he can get 5 years 60 million out there, I don't think he takes 1 year and 13.5-14 or whatever it may be. So holding onto him may be worth it. But anyway, back to it, any contract at this point that's not a key piece to the long term rebuild IF Greinke is traded should be up for consideration. Heck, any player at all. Axford could bring back a very valuable prospect in a trade one would think. And again, if you lose Greinke, by the time you're competitive again, Axford's getting expensive and I think we have enough pitching to scrounge up a closer. Not all these guys who are dominating in the minors will end up as starters. Even guys like Kameron Loe, Veras could hold some value. I literally wouldn't be against trading one single player on the big league roster that's not a rookie outside of the obvious 4. Again, there are only two great draft picks. #1 and #30. Either keep Greinke and carry on, or dump him and just totally rebuild all the way. Not half the way, no Wolf signings(which has been a good one), no vets like Ted Lilly, Marcum, etc..etc...maybe one year deals for Estrada type pitchers. As badly as I'd feel for Braun and Gallardo. We could also give Gallardo an extension...3 years 45 million so at least he'll be here for the next wave.

It's strange to me how often threads asking about bringing back some mediocre-at-best former Brewer come up. It's fairly regular. Then how about a 4-time A.S. former Brewer.... where are you Ben Sheets? [sarcasm]Mark Prior is trying another comeback. We could pick him up and hope he regains his 2003 form![/sarcasm] Seriously though, I've heard about so many Prior comebacks. I've heard when he was with the Padres he was throwing in the early to mid 90's again. I just don't get how a guy can be THAT fragile. And that's not all on Dusty as much as we might like to put it on him.

It's strange to me how often threads asking about bringing back some mediocre-at-best former Brewer come up. It's fairly regular. I normally wouldn't bring up Bush either. But the thought of Parra getting his 75th major league start next Tuesday after knowing how most of the first 74 ended up, a mediocre Dave Bush just seemed so much more sensible. Of all the guys with a lot of major league experience now toiling in the minors, Bush is probably in as good a form as any. It just happens he's a former Brewer. Seriously, nothing Estrada's done has me convinced that he'd do any better than put up Dave Bush type numbers over the course of a season as a starter. That's not terrible for a 5th starter, so I can live with that. He throws harder than Bush, but he's also prone to the long ball. Estrada seems better suited to middle relief so putting him back there and replacing him in the rotation with Bush would be something worth considering. That is of course if they don't bring up Thornburg which on many levels would be the right move. Estrada's done nothing to convince you he could put up better numbers at this stage in his career than Dave Bush....what, other than actually putting up better numbers? Bush was throwing about 86 MPH the last time he was in Milwaukee, and if you're going to cite Estrada's tendency to give up HR's, Dave Bush isn't the guy you should really be championing. As for Parra over Bush, for a couple spot starts, I'll take the guy who at least has great stuff, can throw 94 and has a put away pitch. Bush has a 86 MPH fastball and a slow loopy curveball. He's 3-4 MPH and about 3-4 years away from being a viable option in any fashion for the Brewers in my opinion.

Man.....you could look at a 75 degree sunny day and say, "yeah, but it could rain tomorrow." Again, you're complaining about what exactly? Thornburg in his last 18 innings walking a couple too many, Jungman's 2.90 ERA while he's come out and stated he's specifically working on trying to hone his pitches and he's more worried about improving those pitches than the bottom line, and Peralta, a guy who dominated last year, but has had two bad starts this year? With regard to the bolded part, I'd love to know which pitchers you're talking about? Since you've talked about Jungman since he was drafted and almost seem invested in his failure to tout your own scouting ability when you deemed it a bad pick(I believe...now, I'm fairly certain you compared it ironically enough to the Jimmy Nelson pick). Has he been mediocre to bad? Which pitchers have CONSISTENTLY fit this bill? Certainly not the 22 year old Peralta. Obviously not Thornburg, Bradley, Nelson, Jungman and several others. It's a vague way of complaining in general with no actual direction that I can identify. Good god I'd hate to be a neighborhood kid who's ball happened to roll onto your lawn...

First I would ask, "Why not?", and second I would say that depends on what pitching to contact means. The problem many pitchers including Gallardo have is that they waste too many pitches and Schroeder's "spike the next one in the dirt" line that he uses every time a batter has 2 strikes on the broadcasts drives me insane. My intention isn't to turn this into a pitch count debate but I am going to use the 100 pitch count limit for my example even though I personally have a ton of issues with the methodology or lack there of in which we've arrived at that number. I'm just going to guess here, because the criteria for what a "good 6 innings" would be is fairly subjective but there are 18 outs in 6 innings, so a pitcher would have to face at least 18 batters, then figure an extra 5 batters for hits, walks, hbp, errors, whatever. So for my pitcher pitching a good 6 innings he's going to see 23 batters, well at 100 pitches he isn't even able to average 5 pitches per batter and make that pitch limit. Which leads me to my second point about pitching to contact. In order to pitch deeper into games pitchers have to be more aggressive. In my opinion, way too often our pitchers have hitters 0-2 and 1-2 but end up in even or full counts. I've never understood the "waste a pitch" theory, if you waste 1 pitch to all 23 batters in my example you lose an entire inning of pitches. You exit the game in the 6th when you could have pitched through the 7th. Over the course of the season there is a huge difference between the bullpen picking up 2-3 innings each game vs 3-4 innings each game. Rock's, "waste one in the dirt" is only a quality pitch if it starts out looking like a strike, what hitter isn't expecting a 2 strike pitch in the dirt? Part of the problem of course is that many pitchers just don't work inside anymore, but other problem is that many pitchers also don't throw that high inside FB just out of the zone that's also a great strike out pitch. Putting the ball in the dirt is fine, but throwing a pitch that never looks like a strike provides incredibly little value, how many of those pitches that don't start out looking like a strike actually get swung at? 1-10? Maybe less? How many of those pitches do our pitchers throw in a game? 10-15? That's a whole inning right there... So from a minor league perspective when I see a guy like Gagnon change his approach and "pitch to contact" who's FB has nice movement but he doesn't command it exceedingly well, I'm okay with him pounding a spot working on his control plus his secondary stuff. Also, there is value in pitchers learning differences in hitting between aluminum/wood bats and the difference (hopefully) between the defenses they had behind them as amateurs and the defense playing behind them as professionals. Batters making contact is a good thing if the pitch is in the proper location and pitch type, let hitters swing at pitchers pitches all day long, I'll take weak grounders and pop ups for 27 outs. You want them to be thinking that if they fall behind in the count they are doomed and won't get anything good to hit. What you don't want to do is continually let hitters get out of the hole by being too cute off the corners or in the dirt. The bottom line here from my perspective is you want to force your young pitchers to continually challenge the hitters. So to me, pitching to contact means that I'm going to keep coming after you on every single pitch. As far as having it both ways, I think it's possible to be a high strike out and yet efficient pitcher, we had one, Ben Sheets, and he didn't even have a 3rd pitch to mix in. He just located his FB/hammer curve and you were done. Parra's nibbling on the corners literally infuriated me, just challenge a guy for goodness sake! Gallardo falls into that trap too, just missing with FBs off the corner, wasting a pitch in the dirt, etc, so he ends up getting into way too many full counts. If a pitch has zero chance of being a strike by location or by a batter swinging at it, it's a worthless, meaningless pitch. Essentially you've just thrown a pitch for the sake of upping your pitch count by 1. If you're ahead 0-2 or 1-2 there's no reason to ever end up 3-2 if the batter doesn't foul off a ton of pitches and there will be great ABs, but how many times do we see 1-2 become 3-2 because the next pitch is in the dirt and then then 2-2 just misses off the corner? In those pitcher counts you can literally put a pitch just about anywhere but the majority of the time we know our guys are going to go low or low and away, and the hitters know it too. I should say that I understand how important it is to stay away from the middle of the plate and the waist area, or a typical hitter's natural power zone but at the same time I think that getting strike outs has become synonymous with high pitch counts when that doesn't necessarily have to be the case. It has more to do with how individual pitchers approach the game more so than being a "strike out" or "contact" guy. Yes hitters have probably gotten better, but so have pitchers, the average pitcher throws much harder today than he did in the 80s. Pitching hasn't changed, it's still about location and pitch selection and too many pitchers aren't taking full advantage of the entire strike zone anymore. Why not? Because it's two different methodologies. Second, Schroeder's "spike the next one," when Gallardo has 2 strikes is first of all coming from a guy who was a professional catcher and has been around the game for a long time and caught some of the best ones, caught Blyleven's curve with the Angels. So questioning some of what he says is one thing, but this one is ridiculous. Not to mention, what he OBVIOUSLY means isn't necessarily spike the ball....it's don't leave a 2 strike curve in the zone when you're way ahead in the count. Basic common sense that you learn from early on. Give 'em a chance to swing at something outside of the zone if you've got them 0-2. Second, with your math, how many hitters average 5 pitches per AB? So your math is extremely skewed right there. Third "waste," a pitch goes back to not giving the guy something to hit. Not literally just throwing a pitch with no purpose. This is kinda commons sense. You throw it off the plate, hoping he'll bite. Something Greinke's done this year with extraordinary results. I also don't agree that pitchers don't throw that pitch you "waste," as a pitch that's so far outside there is a 1-10 or a 1-15 chance of the batter swinging at it. I can't fathom where these numbers are coming from. And the Brewers go with the high fastball fairly often as well....so...I just don't agree with the premise from which you're starting with here. I think pitching to contact in the minors is an adjustment thing....I think part of the development is knowing when to go for the strikeout. So I think a pitcher should get more than 2 months in professional baseball to develop the abilities that make for a frontline starting pitcher. I do agree with the 100 pitch count thing. I LOVE what Nolan Ryan has the Rangers and their staff doing. No pitch count, no innings limit....you pitch until you're tired. You count on the player being honest with you and when he starts to tire, you take him out. That is of course unless he's not pitching well, then it's not a matter of stress on the arm.

Thank you....I was thinking Kato. I was tought he said something about "remember Carthage, or death to Carthage," but I'll defer to you on this one. Nonetheless, we're of the same mind, it's ALL about Greinke. I can't emphasize enough how important I think keeping him is. And for those who think that it's going to cost too much money, I'd argue you'd be completely right with Prince, and with CC to a lesser degree(though we were operating with a whole different revenue stream then). But with Greinke, I think keeping him won't really cost the Brewers that much money. Keeping him, IMO, keeps us as a potential 90 win team year in and year out. And if we do get a couple of these guys to really pan out, really take that next step and you're paying Greinke and Yo 32 or so million and your rotation as a whole 34 million. No possible world we can't swing that. And with that, you keep the attendance up around 3 million plus, you keep the team winning or at least giving them a chacne. Without him, I'm afraid you start a slow decline into the 78 win range and the attendance drop negates the money you'd have spent on Greinke. Assuming all the regular risks, that he's actually a viable pitcher throughout the deal which I usually never bet on, but would for Greinke, just as I would for Sabathia. And that's exceedingly rare to find in a pitcher(and I could be wrong, he could go under the knife next year and miss 15 months). But I think with Greinke's pinpoint control, he's nasty slider, he's easy, easy delivery, change and curve and I think his fastball will still sit at 90-92 throughout most of a 5-6 year deal, ie, I think he'll be worth the money in production and worth more in value to the team.

Again, not seeing the option as being a big problem with Thornburg. If we find ourselves in 2015 and he's not ready yet, he's a bust. It's not just the option, but the service time. While I agree that we're not exactly on the razor's edge with either TT's options or service time, if he'd have only come up for a start or two, I'd rather just keep him in the minors. Service time? In our last year with Greinke and a 105 million dollar budget, are we really worried about what would likely be about 10 days of service time among 6 to 6 1/2 years? I respectfully think the service time came into consideration even less than the options, and if the options came into consideration, which I don't believe it did, that would tell you something about the Brewers opinion of Thornburg that is very different than everything we've heard Melvin say about him. Incidentally, Thornburg's pretty much the only guy you can count on Melvin talking about in any detail when he joins the booth during a game. The system will came up last week and he happened to mention that Nelson was hitting 98 last year, mentioned Jungman and Bradley, etc..etc..., but talked about Thornburg the most, LITERALLY even saying how you can "easily," go from AA to MLB these days and how it's often done. So in my opinion, Thornburg will either be up to back up Parra the next time he's due to start, OR they are so high on Thornburg, they don't want to rush him or mess with him at all. What I do think is obvious is that there should be some movement in the pitching staffs. McClung? Vargas? Really? We need subpar pitchers from the 2008 roster in AAA why? Thornburg to AAA, with either Kintzler or Sanchez and Nelson and Garman up to AA. See if maybe he has the stuff to become a loogy for us. He's put up respectable numbers thus far without looking at his splits. I'd assume a guy putting up good numbers as a left handed specialist would be much better vs lefties, but it's just an assumption. There is something about moving Nelson, Jungman and Bradley together. Getting off topic, what a rotation we could have if in some dream world everyone reached their ceilings, or maybe one slot away(I think Bradley if he can get his velocity touching 97 and sitting around the low 90's is a potential ace). But if we have Gallardo/Thornburg/Bradley/Nelson/Jungman Fiers as the long man with Peralta there also getting a crack. It just seems like we're owed some Rays type prospect luck when it comes to pitching where guys who dominate throughout the minors actually continue to do so at the big league level.

Again, not seeing the option as being a big problem with Thornburg. If we find ourselves in 2015 and he's not ready yet, he's a bust.

I have no problem with the decision to START Parra. I have a problem with the decision to replace Estrada with McClendon on the 25 man. What happens when we have a short start? Just burn up our BP again? Seriously? Fiers, Thornburg, Peralta, any of those three would have been great if not for a couple starts, but at least to come in after Parra who at best should give you 4 innings and easily could struggle to get through 2. So then it's what, Loe for 2(who I think has about 20 appearances already), McClendon for 2....I don't know, it just doesn't make any sense to not add another stretched out arm. I do think Parra COULD surprise. He's always had that potential. But christ what exactly is the plan? What are we counting on from him and then equally as important are we just going to assume the next two guys up are going to go 7 innings so that we can field a staff who's arms aren't falling off?